I would surely love to see the American political parties offer seminars to each other. Democrats seem to be very effective advocates and deal makers....when the Democrats control legislatures they usually build coalitions and pass bills. When Republicans control legislatures there is usually gridlock.

The Republicans on the other hand are usually very effective managers and executives. Even many liberal northern states (New Jersey, Wisconsin etc) seem to choose Republican governors because they run things well and can stick to a budget. Democrat executives seem be bored with running large organizations.

I'm thinking of maybe an exchange program where several Democrats are lent to the Republicans for a year and several Republicans are lent to the Democrats. I know it sounds crazy but so is this banging our heads against the same old wall and hoping for a different outcome.

I think you may be led astray by a sampling error. You (by definition) and likely most of those you know (by preference) read the economist and therefor have advantages obviously not shared by the poor cretin below.

If Americans were told of this deception, Romney would have won, big bird or not. GM ships 131,000 jobs overseas after its bailout and Obama says its a success story? Now GM is expected to file for bankruptcy again.
There are several other issues that point to electrion fraud and lying to the general public taht I'm sure the biased media will keep from the maintstream.
Not to mention he used public money to double car purchases from General Motors running up to the election to inflate GM sales.http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-gm-success-story-heade...
I'll China can't wait to start ordering their stooge President around. They paid good money for him, even had to let his brother marry a Chinese woman. Now they happily live in China. If the American population wasn't so stupid/high, they may find this suspicious.

The kindest way to respond to the delusional propaganda above would be a loud guffaw. GM, in the quarter following the publication linked above, enjoyed strong improvement in cash flow and EBIT. Not exactly the predicted bankruptcy. GM didn't "ship" jobs overseas; it has long had and continues to have production in the markets it serves. Some of those markets, including China, would not be viable for imported vehicles.

Facts are troubling to the extreme right-wing nutjobs, so they just ignore them or invent their own fraudulent ones.

---------

On another note, it's fascinating that many of the same voters who rejected Romney and Ryan sent so many teapotists back to the House of Representatives, where they have done so little these past two years.

And on the bright side, Maine elected a strong Independent Senator who is not beholden to either of the major parties. We need more of the likes of Angus King.

Congratulations to President Obama, his strategist, and everyone who worked to get out the vote for the president.

If I were Mr. Romney I would go back and try to understand the following:

Why the state of Massachusetts, where he was once governor and where his campaign headquarters was located, so sounded rejected the governor in the presidential election.

Why Michigan, the state in which Mr. Romney was born and brought up, also soundly rejected him. In fact, his father was governor of Michigan when Mr. Romney was growing up.

Why Wisconsin, his vice presidential running mate Ryan’s home state also rejected Romney and Ryan in the presidential election.

Why New Hampshire, a so-called swing state next to Massachusetts, that Romney sometimes called “home”, also rejected the man. Mr. Romney also spent some time in California, at Stanford, and the state also rejected him.

The actions of these states that know Romney much better than other sates, say a lot. They offer a wealth of information for Romney, the MBA, to analyze, if he harbors any more hopes of doing well in any national election. That’s also information that his future competitors obviously would be looking at.

Just to add, George Romney was a *beloved* 3 term governor of MI. The name has very positive associations for many older Michiganders and it must have taken a lot to turn the state against the legacy...

Congratulations to President Obama, his strategist, and everyone who worked to get out the vote for the president.

If I were Mr. Romney I would go back and try to understand the following:

Why the state of Massachusetts, where he was once governor and where his campaign headquarters was located, so sounded rejected the governor in the presidential election.

Why Michigan, the state in which Mr. Romney was born and brought up, also soundly rejected him. In fact, his father was governor of Michigan when Mr. Romney was growing up.

Why Wisconsin, his vice presidential running mate Ryan’s home state also rejected Romney and Ryan in the presidential election.

Why New Hampshire, a so-called swing state next to Massachusetts, that Romney sometimes called “home”, also rejected the man. Mr. Romney also spent some time in California, at Stanford, and the state also rejected him.

The actions of these states that know Romney much better than other sates, say a lot. They offer a wealth of information for Romney, the MBA, to analyze, if he harbors any more hopes of doing well in any national election. That’s also information that his future competitors obviously would be looking at.

Why was this not on the national radar more? Like many I was worried about the outcome but didnt need to be! How can such a major shift in politics/demographics "sneak" up on most eveyone, ie the national media??? How could the President have such a huge lead when we were told it was gonna be very close? Lol!

Obama is loaded with more worries moment he was declared a winner. Now in less than 2 years (thereafter he will be a lame-duck President)he has to produce results of many of his promises, almost all he was not able to deliver in his first 4 years term. I think; he should start a week long "fiscal cliff" resolution conference with 7 team members of Republicans and Democrats continuing discussion until it is resolved amicably. Then; he should visit Tehran for a week to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran, and if successful continue his marathon week long crusade to resolve the immigration (ii) healthcare bill (iii)middle-east issues including Syria and Palestine. He has proved beyond doubts that no one can bit him in giving pep talks and furnishing laundry list of hopes but no one is siure whether he has ability to deliver those hopes too!!!

You do not understand what the term "lame-duck" means. When there is a Presidential election and the sitting President loses, then, from November 6 until the new President is sworn in, in January, he is a "lame duck". I have no doubt, though, that he will be happy to see that you have laid out the itinerary for his next term for him. I'm sure he was wondering how he should spend the next four years.

I think it was most likely the media wanting to "turn up the excitement volume," as you put it, rather than incompetence of forecasters.

Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight blog does a pretty good analysis of polling data, as far as I can tell, and it had Obama ahead all along in projected electoral votes. As of Monday night/Tuesday morning, it gave Obama a 90.9% chance of victory.

Sites that allow you to bet on the election also favored Obama's chances. So I find it hard to believe that broadcasters truly believed it was a coin toss going into election night. More likely, they wanted people to stay tuned.

Professional polling has got to such level of accuracy, serious mistakes are uncommon. It's just good stats, which finally has become a developed technique even if not yet an exact science.

Partisanship, although not fully extinct, is far less important than the profit motive.

My point was mostly about media that clearly exaggerated the possibility of a close race to excite opinion and increase circulation. When I used to be involved in newspaper management, the trade jargon for it was "to sell paper".

The written press has deteriorated enormously in quality in the last couple of decades. TV is going the same way, particularly the Beeb, a sad shade of its days of glory.

Never watched NHK. Not in the menu of hundreds of channels where I mostly live.

And Melissia in a reply to you is right too.

Gone are the days when good journalism was above all intellectual integrity even if facts were against our opinion.

As Melissia says, just compare today's Economist with it just half a dozen years ago.

Well, there is a consolation. It never ends well.

The Financial Times (part owner of the Economist) was decades ago an excellent newspaper. It became biased and quality went down.

The leaked news that the Pearson group is trying to sell it may be false, but a good omen it definitely ain't.

Being terribly biased during the Euro crisis did have a price.

Opinions are all legitimate and it's always a good thing to have different ones. But distorting facts to prove points, or hide agendas to pretend you are unbiased, never works.

Others are always far more intelligent than we, particularly journalists and politicians, give them credit for.

Mostly because of an ancient eyesight I don't follow everything I'd like to. The choice is sometimes just hazard and opportunity and I don't follow Nate Siver's Five Thirty Eight. I'll try to in four years time...

I have shed tears before
At election result,
Been shaken to my core
While others did exult,
But tears not so bitter,
Dismay never so deep
As for that disaster,
United States did sweep.
My country adopted,
Like the land of my birth,
It seems now has opted
For path leading to dearth:
Red ideology
In base envy grounded,
Stifling bureaucracy,
All employers hounded,
Cult of diversity,
But not intellectual,
Nothing perversity
Save Right-political,
Life-long dependence
On government largesse,
Loss of preeminence,
Financial distress...

Wrapping these sentiments in hexameter doesn't disguise or compensate for their intellectual vapidity. It is this very extremism that drove voters away from Romney and the GOP. Poetry isn't going to change that.

No, I simply mean, as I stated clearly enough, that number of government employees was not a subject I had mentioned. Perhaps you refer to "government largesse" by which I mean not government employees, but people receiving financial assistance from the government in one way or another.

When I am moved, I write in verse as a way to gain some intellectual distance . I did the same when my cat died. I fail to see how I expressed extremism. I come from Europe where the government plays a stifling role in many aspect of life. I care for the United States and am appalled at seeing it going down that road.

Not sure if this is fair assessment as I am from the UK but it seems Romney was too much to the Right, playing along for the party extremists. The trouble is, the white male vote is a declining demographic. Over-emphasising their worth left blacks, Hispanics and Asians (as well as other whites) to vote for Obama.
Another query I have is why Romney was seen as a good bet to run the economy as he had run a business before. What about how he ran it? Outsourcing, labour flexibility. Why is this a good way to run an economy other than for the rich/business. Genuinely intrgued.

Unfortunately, there are too many single-issue voters, people whose decision hinges on abortion, welfare, their own economic status, and just-throw-that-negro-out thinking. Their analyses don't go as deep as they themselves would claim. And that's true on both sides. I doubt many voted based on foreign policy which is where a president has real power. Sad.

Ha. You are genuinely right. In order, Obama was elected in '08 and promptly led the charge to enact health care reform. As a result, the right wing of the GOP (the Tea Party) took matters into their own hands, forcing a "no tax increase" loyalty oath on all members. They then met with great success in the mid-term elections. Like any revolution, this resulted in a period of "ideological purity" and refusal to compromise. Or to put it another way, they thought their s%#t didn't stink. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, man of a thousand faces, sang their song and got the nod. This whole ship of fools then crashed against the rocks of a changed demographic and an economy that actually is recovering. It was a simple reach too far. The GOP, in its present form, cannot compete on the national level. So let's just see what they do next.

Very nicely put. Republicans have to reinvent themselves to make them relevant is not just a changed demographics, but a changed society. The same way the trade unions have to reinvent themselves to stay relevant in a changed industrial world. The left in every country has already undergone change (US, UK, they now appeal to a much broader base, than just traditional working class). But the right hasn't. That's why they are struggling in many countries, including UK. Only place the right is doing well is the erstwhile totalitarian states like Russia.

To me, the worst part or the Republicans is their rejection of science. In which modern country top level politicians still believe that the universe was created in by God in seven days ~4000 years ago. Or that female body can avoid regeneracy when raped. This is absurd! And these people decide the fate of not just the people of America, but of the whole world. The scary part is that they just don't believe in these fairy tales privately, but flaunt them in public hoping that this will earn them votes! Let Moses help them and their voters.

The author writes: "The presidential election is won by the candidate who attains at least 270 electoral-college votes out of the 538 in total that are spread among the states and which are distributed to take account of population size."

This description is close to but not exactly the way that the 538 electoral college votes are distributed. The votes are distributed according to the sum of a state's number of representatives in the 438-member House (which DOES take account of population size) and a state's 2 members of the 100-seat Senate (which DOES NOT take into account population size). In this way, voters in sparsely-populated states have more weight in electing the President than do voters in heavily-populated states.

Well it is maybe considered as an electoral landslide, but the fact that only the difference is only 1,6% is still valid.
So you can say that almost half of the population did NOT vote for him. Buy so many votes it might be a statistically significant difference, however the political interpretation is devastating and offers only a weak mandate.

The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't take into account the practical realities of campaigning. The game is to win the electoral college, not to garner a bunch of popular votes. If it were I would expect there to be much more campaigning in places that already lean a certain direction, i.e. lots of democratic campaigning in California and lots of Republican campaigning in Texas, etc.

But since the campaign wasn't run that way, it's unfair to use the popular vote as some sort of arbiter of mandate.

It isn't a landslide, or decisive victory, nor a convincing one. I don't think anyone feels there is a mandate here.

But it is a win all the same, in the face of a weak economy, and quite a bit of divisive rhetoric.

And President Obama was able to get a razor thin majority (which was an outstanding question). And the Democrats showed up well with Senate races too, in part due to the TEA party inspired candidates upending a couple of races (just like in 2010).

Think, if the Republicans could have kept the fringe under control, we would probably have the Senate now, and quite possibly Romney would have won.

"it's unfair to use the popular vote as some sort of arbiter of mandate."

In reality political capital and standing in governing a representative systems is influenced by public opinion between elections. So people matter.

Now I do find it funny when its observed that a Democrat only got so much of the popular vote (Clinton was a recipient of that too in 1992), when Reagan barely had a majority in 1980 (the collective conscious has completely forgotten that it did't even reach 51%), and George Bush Jr. had even less.

I am a Republican. But I think too much of a focus on EV landslides leads to hubris after an election, and subsequently some self-imposed, institutional myopia (we won soo big, we can do anything now, kind of narrative).

According to the current count, IIRC it's Obama 50.4% to Romney 48.09%, or a 2.31% difference that is still rising as the west coast counts its votes.
.
Shrug. It's not epically high, but it's certainly not as close as you make it out to be.
.
Be that as it may, the president has a "mandate" by virtue of winning his election. How he or she uses that mandate will determine how good or bad of a president they are.

The Republican Base would automatically back the a party presidential nominee--even if it were Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, or Darth Vader--if they put on expensive suit, red tie and a flag pin and talked about business, religion, and abortion.

40% of Mitt's support was Automatic, Blind Republican Support. Mitt never earned it.

7% of Mitt's support, he earned by campaigning, debating and blitzing tv ads.

_______________________________

The 3% he needed--the undecided, indifferent, procrastinating, or nonparticipating voters--did not bother to vote for Mittens.
There was a big football game on tv.

They would have looked rather odd wearing an expensive suit and a red tie, but only one of them could have been elected POTUS, after November 12, 1969, though there would have been other technical difficulties as well. The other two weren't natural-born citizens of the United States.

As for Darth Vader, it's not clear where or when he or it was born, but Vice Potus Dick Cheney said, "It means we need to be able to go after and capture or kill those people who are trying to kill Americans. That's not a pleasant business. It's a very serious business. And I suppose, sometimes, people look at my demeanor and say, 'Well, he's the Darth Vader of the administration'." Even HRC referred to Cheney as Darth Vader.

I will play Nostradamus and make some predictions:
______________________________________

Obama will win a second term.
Romney will over perform fellow Massachusetts presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. And under perform John McCain from 2008.

Utah will go 90% for Romney(thanks to Mormons!)...but it doesn't matter since he loses his 'home states' of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Michigan and California.
People who know him best avoid voting for him.

Ohio will go to Obama. The victory will be traced back to the 2008 Big Three Auto Bailout and the lack of Romney support. A Key swing state again proves its worth.

______________________________________

Big turnout for a perceived close election will boost Democrat turnout.

Early voting is key. Election day lines are long and slow.

What is thought to be a razor thin margin is a popular landslide of more than 5%.

Hispanics vote 70% for Obama.
Blacks over 90%.
Gays over 90%.
Single mothers are the other key, voting 70% for Obama.
Women and the under 30 go for Obama, nearly two for three.

Obama will also win swing states of New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Obama will lose North Carolina and Florida.
Romney gets the demented senior Alzheimer votes in FL nursing homes.
Romney is wildly popular in Southern Trailer Parks.
I am talking 'Fire your all your guns in the air at once...Yee Hahhh!' popularity.

Independent Gary Johnson undermines Mitten's numbers in Colorado and New Hampshire. Pot is the issue. After this election, Mitt should now try pot. Or at least invest in it as a green cash machine.

The Tea Party nuts in CT, NJ, Missouri, Indiana and Ohio are kept out of the Senate chamber.

The House will stay Republican with a loss of 12 seats. Tea Party backlash.

The Tea Party will disavow Romney as an Etch-a-Sketch Conservative, and will clamor for True Conservative in 2016.

The PACS strategy of television ad bombardment is now seen as ineffective 'throwing spaghetti at the wall'.

Hurricane Sandy distracts Americans in the last week of the election.
Now news is All Obama--All the Time-- 24/7.
Mitt is hauling boxes of water bottles and it looks strained and staged.

Mitt supporters cry out: "Remember Romney did really well in the First Debate!" ....While America digs out of the rubble, pumps out the basements, tears out walls, has no running water, and shivers in the cold.

Poor timing can make us all look like Fools.

The real threat to Republicans in Demography.

And their own stupid decision making putting Republican Party interest ahead of the Nation. Remember who fumbled the United States AAA Credit Rating for the first time in national history?
_______________________________________

The blame begins on Wednesday.
Romney hits the Jack Daniels. Maybe goes shopping for another younger trophy wife.
Goes on a religious sabbatical as organic farmer in a kibbutz in Israel.
And goes to Egypt to swim in denial.

Obama winters in Hawaii.
______________________________

In the End, Mittens is a weaker candidate than John McCain.
Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Cain, and Limbaugh were all right: Anyone but Romney.

However Obama is less fresh and embattled as the incumbent in the Great Recession.

This was NEVER a horse race...the Media sexed it up with faulty polls.

Polls have a major flaw: They ONLY sample landline phones when 30-40% of Americans exclusively use mobile phones. Polls under sample the young, minorities and the on-the-go players. I give Obama an extra 5% on any phone poll. It is simple sampling error and 99% of media overlooked it.
Moneybags can't buy the presidency.

While your post is quite humourous and enjoyable to read... you are wrong about the polls. I believe Gallup polls cell phones as do a couple of other major pollsters.

I would refer you to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight column on the NY Times website. He explains about systemic errors in polling that lead to confidence issues, which can be mostly mitigated by averaging and weighting polls. His forecast in the end appears to have been off by 6 electoral votes.

Unfortunately, most political journos don't understand statistics, so they just say enough to cover their arses... which usually means... it's a close race. Even if it's not.

A mixed record for Nostradamus. You got it right for the final result (but this, let's admit it, was easy), but were wrong regarding the margin, as Mitt did better than McCain (and there was an inconsistency in the predictions: how could have Mitt done worse than McCain while winning NC and FL?). Much better regarding the Senate, as you correctly predicted the defeat of Tea Party candidates. One question: is it really true that all the polls only sample landline phones? In the eve of the XXI centrury does not make any sense..

Congrates:My prediction of bottom line(300)and winning of BO is realized.

Friday, October 26, 2012
Re-Elected Barack

Forecast: Barack re-elected in last debate
In 2008, Americans elected Obama president of USA. But in 2012, they re-elected Barack as president. The word change we can made him the most powerful person on the earth. In all probability, he will not repeat his big margin of 365. But he will not get less than 300 this time. Winning will be thin but comfortable.
Third debate on foreign policy was a boon for Barack. The challenger tacitly and indirectly accepted his political acumen. Mitt agreed on many issues and congratulated him on Osama killing issue. He could not propose any better alternative before nation on foreign policy.
Facts and figures show the formal decision will be on November 6, 2012. But real decision has been taken by voters on the day of third debate. This day and debate is the turning point of US election 2012.
Learned voters evaluate in view of all facts and situations. Barack is not responsible for any ailment with which country is infected. Be it economy, unemployment, war outside the country etc. He entered into white house as president in the worst situation. First, he checked ongoing deterioration and then tried his best to bring things on track. Recession and meltdown inside and outside the nation was the biggest challenge for him to face with.
Dr Barack will cure all ailments by medicine Obamacare. First, he experiments his treatment on Romensia. He is an excellent election manager and fundraiser. After second debate graph starts going up gently. Third debated accelerated it. Now election keeps on building in favor of Barack.
Unlike 2008, 2012 election is being contested on social issue. Then the issue of change was very much visible. But this time invisible under current on social issue- market versus social-has brought the win to Barack. It is a matter of announcement of result. Result is already prepared and will be shown on due date of 6th Nov.
Above statement (my forecast well in advance) is not without mathematical calculation and proof. With the help of social and political marketing tools and techniques, it is evaluated and proved. Based on mathematical analysis Barack will win more than 300 of 540.
A buzz/gossip of close contest. This all is manipulation, management money game. BO is winning for sure,with bottom margin of 300. Media is just trying to see their news by creating a slogan like its neck and neck and close-contest. These are all media marketing products.

It was a much closer race than with McCain, though to McCain's credit in his election few predicted Republican can win because they had messed up the country so much.

Republicans should not feel bad, at least Romney is the right candidate, it shows that the Republicans majority still can distinguish who is a bigot. On the contrary, it is sad that these days it is hard to find a Republican candidate who is not a bigot.

I'm not so sure that Romney was the right candidate. Granted, most of the others would have been worse. But the Republicans could, at least in theory, have opted for Huntsman or Johnson or Pawlenty. Any of whom would have had a far better shot at the general election.

For a party that is supposed to be conservative, as in following Federalist papers caveats about passion and faction, a TEA party impacted process certainly got its freak on.

I hope a Hunsman, Johnsonor Pawlenty would be welcomed back or take action to turn the Repulican party away from extremism, back towards real conservativism of the Ike variety, with emphasis on good government, sobriety and fiscal prudence, and consistency.

The big money donators should realize this and act act appropriatey too in my mind, out of self-interest (if your person can't get elected, then you are out of the game, period; have a moderate candidate and you get some of your agenda through, in tempered form).

Adelman, for example, spent how many millions of his own money on 6 candidates, all 6 of whom (including Romney) lost. If these folks are really the astute businessmen then purport to be, they may have to seriously reevaluate their investment strategy.

Well everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
Interestingly seems some folks who may be very good at business got some egg on their face this season when venturing into the public policy realm.
For instance, I think Jack Welch's tweats were counterproductive, and could have put a dent in his brand if he kept it up (along with the inexplicable interviews).
Murdock came off sounding odd too.
I won't get into Trump, since I suspect that may be a PR strategy (concede to buffoonery for exposure)

Romney was routed in his home State of Michigan and in Massachusetts where he was governor. The Republicans put forth the most moderate and populist candidate they have in recent memory and he was facing a president who championed an unpopular healthcare bill and is "responsible" for an anemic recovery (to those who believe the President is also our economic Czar) and they still got crushed. If this isn't a wake up call for the republican party to abandon their extremist, exclusionary, borderline racist, homophobic, dogmatic policies they will find themselves in another 20 year period of irrelevance.

Except that's not the case at state level. Or, unfortunately, in the average House district.

And if the left can't drag their butts to the polls for off-year elections, the left may mostly win in years divisible by 4 then fritter that away the other 3 years. To be clear: it'll take several election cycles to reverse the 2010 election. 2012 is just a start.

The 'average House district' is not average at all. It is the product of finely-tuned gerrymandering conducted by state legislatures, more of which are controlled by Republicans than by Democrats.
Eliminate gerrymandering in both red and blue states and it is a mathematical certainty that the balance of seats in the House will revert towards the national popular split of Democrats and Republicans.

There is public pressure for independent electoral commissions in a few states, but these initiatives rarely make progress because the people that must approve such commissions are the same ones who enjoy the power that drawing their own districts brings.

Regrettably, the United States does not have a civil service that both major parties can agree is reasonably independent, as Australia has. Since 1980, the Republican party has characterized government services outside of the military and security agencies to be uniformly incompetent, wasteful, and biased towards the political left. This characterization is a component of the Republican platform to reduce the role of government in American society. As such the independence, resources, and status of the US civil service has degraded considerably in the last few decades. Thus, we lack a trusted neutral institution to oversee non-partisan government functions such as drawing electoral districts.

Its by state out of tradition. Iowa has an agency do the deed (the Iowa Legislative Service Agency).

Then there have been stabs at reforms in setting up independent commissions or committees, or bi-partisan ones comprising non-elected members.

I think California has moved in that direction, as well as a handful of other states (maybe seven others).

Considering territory optimization is pretty old technology. We could set some parameters on population density and compactness of districts and generte districts in like five minutes. Compactness is old hat now (think sales territories with drive times).

What would require some additional elbow grease would be accomodating, or being as sensitive as possible to historical regional divisions or actual configurations of current communities.

So try to keep one region intact as possible in a single district - say the Sand Hills of North Carolina. Or avoid as much as possible splitting of parts of counties, or dividing up medium size cities, etc. and shoving them into different districts.

What would happen if the states of this almost unbroken Big Red Expanse at the middle of the map decided to take seriously the vision that they — and only they — are the "real" United States of America?

The most extreme Republicans and arch-conservative media pundits come very close to stating that, after all.

Keep in mind the actual distribution of money, as well. Obama received most of his campaign funds from individuals; Romney recieved most of his from Super PACs.
.
In total, Democrats earned 86,686,313 USD from political action committees this election season; in comparison, the GOP earned 435,044,657 USD.
.
However, Obama outspent Romney in the presidential election despite this, because Obama received a more from individual political donations (which range from 1 to 2500 USD), more than half of which was covered by donations of 200 USD or under.
.
TL;DR, Romney and the GOP raised a some very large sums of money from a very small number of people, while Obama and the Dems raised a large amount of small sums of money from a very large number of people.